Gunner Bailey Posted 27 July , 2008 Share Posted 27 July , 2008 Even if Dyett was not a lieutenant but a sub lieutenant. Horatio You are correct. I puzzled that whilst I was at the graveside. A mistake surely? Gunner Bailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie Posted 27 July , 2008 Share Posted 27 July , 2008 Two questions: Why is dawn the traditional time for executions? Were all WW1 executions enacted at dawn? That was a custom of the time within Western Armies while deployed in combat. Executions have used means other than death by firing squad, which was considered a more honorable form of execution for a soldier. Western navies have preferred death by hanging. That was by no means the only time Armies conducted executions. Obviously execution by firing squad required daylight. Hangings sometimes occurred in the darkness before dawn. Some executions were held in mid-day to ensure maximum viewing by the troops, so that the example would be made clear when desertion or cowardice in battle were the charges. ..or so i've been informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Posted 30 July , 2008 Share Posted 30 July , 2008 Phil, I dispute that the Magna Carta was designed to apply to all citizens - IIRC it was designed to apply to the Barons! I doubt the PBI of the day would have had a look in! Magna Carta. Roxy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 30 July , 2008 Share Posted 30 July , 2008 Western navies have preferred death by hanging.. Except when it was an Admiral who was up for the chop, when special dispensation seems to have been made: AdmiralByng ciao, GAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soldier75 Posted 30 July , 2008 Share Posted 30 July , 2008 Hiya, Some years ago, I was researching the men from Widnes who are listed on the town`s War Memorial and discovered that two of them listed were "Shot at Dawn", Pte`s R M Jones and Thomas Downing. I managed to trace a surviving elederly relative of Pte Thomas Downing and realising that this was a difficult subject and not sure of how much he knew about the death of his uncle, I decided to go carefully. I asked him the usual questions to link him with Pte Downing and then asked "Do you know how he died ?" he replied, "Aye Lad, They shot the ******!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 30 July , 2008 Share Posted 30 July , 2008 The Magna Carta had little or nothing to do with military discipline - there was not even a standing army at this time. In essence, the various Mutiny Acts, which resulted in the 1881 Army Act, and its subsequent alterations and amendments, governed amongst other things, pecularly military offences such as mutiny, insubordination, or even striking an officer, which were not recognised offences under civil law. TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 30 July , 2008 Share Posted 30 July , 2008 Phil, I dispute that the Magna Carta was designed to apply to all citizens - IIRC it was designed to apply to the Barons! Roxy I`m not a lawyer, but I interpreted this as meaning that Magna Carta applied to all:- 'No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions ... except by the lawful judgement of his peers.' 'To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 30 July , 2008 Share Posted 30 July , 2008 Phil "Freemen" in 1215 were not all people. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 30 July , 2008 Share Posted 30 July , 2008 Check out who was deemed to be a "free man" at the time the Magna Carta was drawn up. TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 30 July , 2008 Share Posted 30 July , 2008 I think the Magna Carta is regarded as a precedent in the evolution of a legal concept over a period of centuries and not as a universally recognized principle at the time it was written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 31 July , 2008 Share Posted 31 July , 2008 It is my understanding that the original English Articles of War did not trace their origin back to English common law; they were adapted from the Articles of War implemented by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in 1621 during the Thirty Years War. The Swedish military legal code was translated by many European nations, including England in 1632 in the book The Swedish Discipline. I suspect that by the time of the Great War the British Articles of War had incorporated some features of English legal concepts and procedure. The U.S. did not replace its Articles of War until 1950; until that time American military law gave greater emphasis to the maintenance of military good order and discipline than it did to the rights of the accused. The following are the humanitarian articles of the original Swedish code as taken from their 1632 translation into English: Article 88 He that forces any Woman to abuse her; and the matter be proved, he shall dye for it. Article 89 No Whore shall be suffered in the Leaguer: but if any will have his own wife with him, he may. If any unmaried woman be found, he that keepes her may have leave lawfully to marry her; or else be forced to put her away. Article 90 No man shall presume to set fire on any Towne or Village in our land: If any does, he shall be punished according to the importance of the matter, so as the Judges shall sentence him. Article 91 No Soldiour shall set fire upon any Towne or Village in the enemies land; without he be commanded by his Captaine. Neither shall any Captaine give any such command, unless hee hath first received it from Us, or our Generall: who so does the contrary, he shall answer it in the Generals counsayle of Warre, according to the importance of the matter. And if it be proved to be prejudiciall unto us, and advantageous for the enemie; he shall suffer death for it. Article 99 No man shall presume to pillage any Church or Hospitall, although the strength be taken by assault, except hee bee first commanded; or that the soldiers and Burgers be fled thereinto and doe harme from thence. Who does the contrary, shall be punished as aforesaid. Article 100 No man shall set fire upon any Church, Hospitall, Schoole, or Mill, or spoyl them any way, except hee bee commanded. Neyther shall any tyrannise over any Churchman, or aged people, Men or Women, Maydes or Children, unless they first take Armes against them, under paine of punishment at the discretion of the Judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 31 July , 2008 Share Posted 31 July , 2008 I confess my lack of knowledge on these legal matters. Can someone just say:- 1/Does Magna Carta have any legal standing in 20th C British law or is it simply a historic document? 2/ If it has any standing, what is it`s legal relevance, if any, to FGCM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 31 July , 2008 Share Posted 31 July , 2008 Mr Dixon may be able to help there, Phil. My understanding of the importance of Magna Carta was that it set a limit on the powers of the monarch and also laid down that he was also subject to the laws of the land. The Stuart idea of the divine right was in that sense, a retrograde step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baorbrat Posted 31 July , 2008 Share Posted 31 July , 2008 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 31 2008, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I confess my lack of knowledge on these legal matters. Can someone just say:- 1/Does Magna Carta have any legal standing in 20th C British law or is it simply a historic document? 2/ If it has any standing, what is it`s legal relevance, if any, to FGCM? Magna Carta has some legal standing in English Law. None to Scottish Law. Zero relevence to FGCM, either in 1914-18,or now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 31 July , 2008 Share Posted 31 July , 2008 Thanks, Peter. Can you briefly outline why Magna Carta has some legal standing in English law, but it has no relevance to FGCM? Is/was the FGCM entirely independent of English law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baorbrat Posted 31 July , 2008 Share Posted 31 July , 2008 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 31 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks, Peter. Can you briefly outline why Magna Carta has some legal standing in English law, but it has no relevance to FGCM? Is/was the FGCM entirely independent of English law? The difference lies in the roots of law. Magna Carta is one of the Roots of English Civil Law. Military Law has a different source, and serves a different function. Military Law has by the nature of military operations has sometimes to be swift. While Military Law became part of Civil Law in 1881. Civil Law did not and has never become part of Military Law. Badly explained I know, but regard Military Law as seperate for the purpose of an Army in the Field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 31 July , 2008 Share Posted 31 July , 2008 So a soldier is judged entirely according to Military Law and has no protection from the Civil Law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Posted 31 July , 2008 Share Posted 31 July , 2008 Phil, I stand by to be corrected, but, nowadays, I suspect that soldiers are invariably judged by civil law unless the 'crime' is a military offence - ie AWOL, late to work etc. Roxy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 1 August , 2008 Share Posted 1 August , 2008 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 31 2008, 12:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So a soldier is judged entirely according to Military Law and has no protection from the Civil Law? Looking at the outcome of a civil prosecution today, it seems soldiers are liable to proceedings under both military and civil laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 1 August , 2008 Share Posted 1 August , 2008 Looking at the outcome of a civil prosecution today, it seems soldiers are liable to proceedings under both military and civil laws. Tom I think it would be proceedings under different charges, though. The military proceedings being "disciplinary action by an employer", if you see what I mean. Assuming that we are referring to the case in Cyprus, the men have been acquitted on charges that might have got them 5 years in prison. I assume they might face military proceedings for being in an off-limits bar - presumably something attracting a smallish fine, or a bit of a bollocking. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem49 Posted 1 August , 2008 Share Posted 1 August , 2008 They were punished by the Army just after it happened I believe. sm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baorbrat Posted 1 August , 2008 Share Posted 1 August , 2008 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 31 2008, 12:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So a soldier is judged entirely according to Military Law and has no protection from the Civil Law? Not while in the field, ie at war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baorbrat Posted 1 August , 2008 Share Posted 1 August , 2008 Phil, I stand by to be corrected, but, nowadays, I suspect that soldiers are invariably judged by civil law unless the 'crime' is a military offence - ie AWOL, late to work etc. Roxy THe difference is "in the field" ie at War, In Combat. In the field the soldier is subject to Military Law. Civil Law does not apply then. Think about it, one can not pull a battalion from the front line, conduct an investigation lasting months, have a soldier released on bail. In a war there is simply no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 1 August , 2008 Share Posted 1 August , 2008 The necessity is clear, Peter. It just goes against the grain that a drug fuelled burglar gets all the civil law`s protection but the front line soldier doesn`t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 1 August , 2008 Share Posted 1 August , 2008 During WWII an Act of Parliament was passed giving the US Army the right to try its soldiers by court martial for offences committed in the UK that would have been dealt with by civil laws had they been committed by servicemen from Britain or other Allied nations. One of the consequences of this was that US Soldiers could, and were, hanged for rape, which wasn't then a capital crime in the UK. Before the pedants post, I am well aware that Scotland has a separate legal system. I imagine that a separate Act was passed to give the same effect in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now